But other parts of the same filing may be even more interesting. Xbiz picked up on the part where White whines about all the defendants he sued filing identical "kit" motions in response to getting sued... because it's too expensive for White to respond to each one. Most of these are motions to sever, noting that it was improper to join so many totally and completely unrelated defendants into a single case. So far, most of the courts presented with such cases have agreed to dump most of the defendants as unrelated, but White makes it out like this is some crazy concept because the defendants dare to file boilerplate/copy-and-paste documents:

Most of these motions, however, are filed by pro se litigants and cut and pasted
from BitTorrent defense kits or otherwise copied...

[....]
These motions are expensive to defend against. Indeed, many such motions
intentionally raise issues that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter before the
court or matter which no court has ever held justify the motion. Consequently, Plaintiff has to
spend substantial resources arguing against irrelevancies and abstractions.

It kind of makes you wonder how anyone doing what White is doing could file such a thing with a straight face. His entire legal campaign depends on making his legal efforts "expensive to defend against," to try to pressure people into settling up rather than fighting. In fact, White seems to try to twist this abuse of the court system to force settlement in his own favor, claiming that the court should want more settlements, and thus it should encourage random joinder, because it makes White's costs lower, meaning he can allow lower settlement deals:

Increasing the costs associated with this litigation by forcing Plaintiffs to file
individual suits would only increase the settlement demands and make settlements less probable.

If I understand this logic properly, it suggests that the courts should prefer more mass shakedown lawsuits, because it'll mean more settlements rather than court. But, of course, that leaves out the idea that many of the defendants might just be innocent.

He, like everyone else involved in these kinds of lawsuits/shakedowns -- including Righthaven -- is the exact kind of lawyer that people make lawyer jokes about. He is the reason that people think of lawyers as ambulance chasers and snake oil salesmen.

He thought he could pervert a copyright infringement lawsuit into a massive shakedown scheme without anyone noticing or caring; now that people have noticed and proven that they care about this reckless and abusive use of the legal system, he wants to whine about how the courts aren't making it easier for him to shake people down?

These kinds of lawsuits and these kinds of lawyers must be challenged, because these are threats to the legal system that ordinary men and women must not allow to stand.

The courts have smacked Righthaven down, and rightfully so. This guy should be next on the list.

"But, of course, that leaves out the idea that many of the defendants might just be innocent."

Everyone is guilty of something...which is why I'm now offering Sin Insurance! For an unlimited time only, you can give me your money under the illusion that your Sinsurance will protect you from guilt, lawsuits, and eternal damnation! Act now. The first hundred callers will receive the opportunity to buy me a sports car!

I especially like numbers 12 and 16. And as for active duty military members, of course he has to drop the suit, because otherwise he would have to file affidavits saying that he actually investigated and found that the person was not deployed!

Re:

Hey, this guy went through all the right steps. He to law school and society was supposed to give him money as a result of his specialized training. Nobody mentioned that it required doing actual work or that technology would give victims...I mean, peasants...er, defendents the chance to fight back without having gone to law school or paying a lawyer tax.

Re: Re: Lowering My Standards

Re:

It is probably not a good idea. All you need is one of these so called "trolls" to actually have the time and the money to follow through, and most of the boilerplate filers would find themselves on hook for some pretty sizable judgements. It really just requires someone to show up and keep doing the work without considering the bottom line, and getting it pushed through. It would likely also set some precedents that in the future would make this sort of thing much easier.

I think that Mike is also being a little hard headed here in not understanding the lawyers point of view on joinder. Without some way to group these lawsuits together, there is the potential that each of is filed seperately, and the court will have to do the same setup work, and assign court time to each of the cases seperately, and hear the same evidence over and over again, deal with the same objections over and over again, and in the end render a verdict over and over again. If a lawsuit was filed today for each individual who willfully shared part or all of a given movie on "da torrentz", you could easily see 20,000 or 30,000 filings.

Further, ISPs might actually have to answer 20,000 to 30,000 individual requests for information. Didn't they complain that the volume was too high already?

What the lawyer points out (correctly) is that the costs involved in filing and fighting these lawsuits to their conclusion is high, too high in fact. It's high enough that even if you win, you are unlikely to be able to collect the judgement. Consider the money spent to chase Jammie Thomas, and consider even the lowest settlement doesn't pay the legal fees, and is still non-collectable.

It puts plaintiffs in a position of "no win", which creates justice denied. You wouldn't stand up for it for the individual person, why do you think that the movie industry should have their justice denied?

Re: Lowering My Standards

"Some come here to argue and prove polar points
While some here are willing to sway
I came to this site after cracking my joints
So I could consume 30 seconds today"

We pinpoint arguments with the mathematical precision of polar coordinates. Refuting IP trolls is easy because their brains are inferior subordinates. Lawyers love to leave us laughing and lingering at their fallacious reasoning while politicians fumble with words during their election seasoning. The suffering public is stuck with a government that refuses to serve the republic while lawyers and lobbyists hurt the economy like misguided missile destroyers. Innovative employers get stuck with baseless lawsuits that make it on techdirt and these frivolous lawsuits form the basis of our baseless legal system.

Re: Re:

So, a defendant, using the same tactics as lawyer trolls is now denying justice!? Everybody has their right to have their day in court. If a defendant can fight a boilerplate threat with a boilerplate "kit" motion then, by golly, that is his right by law. If the troll doesn't think he has a good case, whereas he doesn't have much of a burden of proof (like in most cases), then he shouldn't fight it. If the return isn't worth the court battle then don't start the fight. Of course, it would make more sense to go after high profile infringers (politicians, etc.) and focus on commercial infringement but these trolls are looking for fools to roll over and pay up a settlement without putting up a fight. Mr. White...your bluff has been called...do you fold or go all in?

Re: Re:

"Without some way to group these lawsuits together, there is the potential that each of is filed seperately, and the court will have to do the same setup work, and assign court time to each of the cases seperately, and hear the same evidence over and over again, deal with the same objections over and over again, and in the end render a verdict over and over again. "

Yeah screw those people! How dare they, wanting their (constitutionally guaranteed) day in court to defend themselves! They should just accept the fact that they are guilty, and in exactly the same way as another 20,000 people and just fork over without so much complaining and fighting back. I mean, the nerve of people to actually expect due process and justice from our court system, sheesh! You are accused therefore guilty therefore fork over and stop being such a pain in the side of the courts! A-holes.

When I received a letter from ACS:Law the first place I went to was http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/ and used one of their templates, as writing a correctly and carefully worded letter is important. I still received a reply from Andrew Crossley and passed all emails and letters to my MP (Norman Baker) Andrew Crossley was very determined that I had in fact downloaded the content to which the letter was referring to (which I hadn't).I was made aware of ACS:Law via Torrent Freak and Techdirt about a year before receiving it, so wasn't worried at all by it.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

You're missing a fundamental point.

Any case of this nature which involves 20,000 to 30,000 people is invalid on its face and can be summarily dismissed.

Why? Because the plaintiff does not have evidence which shows defendants sitting at their computers performing the acts of which they're accused. Plaintiff has -- at best -- log files, which might show certain actions which might be associated with their computer(s) which might be infringing. Plaintiff has no evidence whatsoever that shows that defendants were involved in any of that. Plaintiff is expecting a technically-illiterate court to accept the ludicrous supposition that log entries are equivalent to personal actions, even though anyone with even a minimal grounding this subject knows that's absurd.

What plaintiff is engaged in here isn't good-faith litigation in an attempt to seek justice. It's a shakedown, and it's predicated on intimidation (of defendants) and ignorance (of technology).

Re: Re: Re: Re: Lowering My Standards

Those terrible people! ('ey 'ook err jearabs!)

They're threatening his livelihood! By making him have to treat each defendant as an individual, and show only evidence against the individual, instead of the (somehow) more valid giant-pile-o'-addresses, they are committing an act that he and his brotherhood have declared illegal:
Felony Interference with a Business Model.

But, of course, that leaves out the idea that many of the defendants might just be innocent.

Exactly, I'm sure the lawyer just picked picked people at random and started adding names to his lawsuit, I'm sure ALL of them are innocent. Just like everyone in prison is innocent if you ask them. /sarcasm

Re: Those terrible people! ('ey 'ook err jearabs!)

On a more serious note, if a judge can be convinced against him by an obviously boilerplate legal filing, that just goes to show that, a: his case was just that weak, and/or b: the boilerplate was absolutely a legitimate defense.

Re: Re:

Each defendant could have a different defense. That alone entitles them to individual cases.

If it's too expensive to sue non-commercial infringers, perhaps lawsuits should instead focus on commercial infringement. You know, what we were originally told these laws would be used for when they passed.

Re:

It doesn't matter if 99% of them actually did do it, in the US you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, so if that 1% never gets a chance to defend themselves in court because the ruling applies to the entire group, the system has failed. That's why so many of these cases are being thrown out, it doesn't make sense to try them all together for acts which they did individually, regardless of the fact that they used a technology that requires other people to participate in order to work.

Re: Re:

This is a remix of indulgences. I guarantee that you'll possibly be safe from earthly lawsuits, assuaged of guilt (with drugs and alcohol you supply), a McMansion timeshare in Heaven off-season, 70 "virgins," enlightenment (batteries not included), and better digestive health.

Re: Re:

What the lawyer points out (correctly) is that the costs involved in filing and fighting these lawsuits to their conclusion is high, too high in fact. It's high enough that even if you win, you are unlikely to be able to collect the judgement. Consider the money spent to chase Jammie Thomas, and consider even the lowest settlement doesn't pay the legal fees, and is still non-collectable.

To a reasonable person, this argument would point to a problem with the original laws, no?

Re: Re:

What the lawyer points out (correctly) is that the costs involved in filing and fighting these lawsuits to their conclusion is high, too high in fact.
It's high enough that even if you win, you are unlikely to be able to collect the judgement. Consider the money spent to chase Jammie Thomas, and consider
even the lowest settlement doesn't pay the legal fees, and is still non-collectable.

So what, you have a right to sue and eventually win in court, but you have no right to recover money from expensive lawsuits initiated by your own volition.

In fact, copyright holders get a sweeter deal than other civil litigants.

Re: Re:

So far precedent has been making this sort of thing harder and less profitable. And are you really complaining that lawyers are expected to follow the rules and do work? The courts are there to resolve real disputes, not subsidize someone's business idea. If these lawyers were serious about using the courts as they are meant to be used, perhaps we would have seen even one of these cases go to trial, but as it stands they mostly refuse to even name defendants when they have the necessary information and are ordered by the judge to name & serve. The only judgments we have seen in these cases are default judgements (meaning the defendants didn't even bother to respond or show up), not a single decision on the merits. The very idea of this guy following through is an absurdity because he brought the case with absolutely no intention of litigating it, which is why the court is questioning the behavior. This article is actually a little bit behind the news as this particular lawyer in this particular case has been ordered by the judge to appear at a hearing to determine whether he and/or the plaintiff should be sanctioned for frivolous conduct on October 24.

Re: Re: Re:

No, it still applies. The onus is on the plaintiff to prove guilt, but the evidentiary standards are different. Preponderance of the evidence in a civil case vs. proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

Re: Re:

You're right but is this necessarily bad? If you have to sue this many people for doing something, perhaps we should reconsider as a society whether it really ought to be illegal or not. If a law cannot effectively be enforced fairly, that law should not be a law at all, is one way to look at it.

Re: Re:

"Innocent until proven guilty" is only true in criminal court. In civil court, is based on the "preponderance of evidence", which basically means the jury or judge finds in favor of whatever story they think is the most likely based on the evidence. Of course the guy you were replying to still is missing the point that the lawyer is assuming that he would actually get settlements out of most people in a mass suit.

It gets more entertaining kids....
Steele has come out from under his rock and filed and Amicus Brief supporting this "lawyer" or trying to keep the entire mass settlement scheme from being exposed fully.

—
The Court ORDERS that a hearing will be held on Monday, October 24, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. to consider whether the plaintiff, its attorney, or both are subject to sanctions for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, pursuant to the show cause Order entered on October 5, 2011.
—

Re: Re:

Re: I can't wait

People focus more on the lawyers than who they represent.
They want to believe the studios involved are just mislead by the big bad lawyers.

Piracy is not the problem, the problem is thinking in the age of the internet you can keep using the same business model you used for VHS tapes and consumers will not look for other content or easier ways to get content. If you charge a fair price, don't DRM it to high heaven, and meet the consumer half way the consumer will come to you. There will always be file sharing its how you react that makes it work for you or against you.

While I think such threats are unacceptable, I think they show the fact that the anti-IP movement is gaining momentum. It's sentiment will continue to grow and IP maximists will have to deal with it because their lives are about to get a whole lot more difficult as they begin to have a much tougher time persuading lawmakers and law enforcement to pass and enforce their desired policies. The future is about to change for them.

Re: Re: I can't wait

"Piracy is not the problem, the problem is thinking in the age of the internet you can keep using the same business model you used for VHS tapes and consumers will not look for other content or easier ways to get content."

Piracy is the problem, not because it has antyhing to do with out of date business models, but rather that it reflects a lack of morals in the population. If your business model depended on people having at least some moral idea of right and wrong, then you are sunk. People just don't care about anyone except themselves anymore. It's all "me, me, me!" and personal fulfillment for the individual only, regardless of the cost to others.

Trying to push this as a "producer problem" is like blaming the rape victim. It doesn't matter how short the skirt is, it's still wrong.

Re: Re: Re: I can't wait

True, but the problem is does the methods that these people put forward actually effective? there is plenty of evidence that seems to show that it harms genuine comsumers, who do not have a 'me me me!' mentality, more than pirates. It seems like the buisnesses that lobby these methods have the 'me me me!' mentality more than the pirates.

CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED

Your legal conclusions are VERY wrong -- most courts hold joinder is proper. Do a westlaw search of BitTorrent and joinder and you will find that every single district in the country universally holds that joinder is proper in a well pled copyright infringement suit. There are 35 cases discussing this issue. The copyright owners have undoubtably won it nationally. DO YOU YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE WRITING GARBAGE.

Joinder, shmoinder. Most people have no idea what "joinder" is. But what they do know is when they are threatened by a blackmailer, the proper response is a punch in a face. Defendants are pissed off by your racket and fight back, overwhelming your ass with motions: don't whine yet, it is just a beginning.

Re: Re: Lowering My Standards

Re: Re:

>It puts plaintiffs in a position of "no win", which creates justice denied. You wouldn't stand up for it for the individual person, why do you think that the movie industry should have their justice denied?

You mean like how Evan Stone sent out subpoenas for Doe information to ISPs, even though he wasn't granted permission?

If that's your definition of justice, don't fault others when people realise that your definition of justice is based on "fuck all" procedure, never mind the laughable burden and quality of your proof. It's like trying to ban drug use; any possible sympathy for any legitimate concern you might have will be rendered useless when your approach is blatantly overreaching and collaterally damaging.

If you do want to speak justice, and treat corporations as individuals, then how about considering this - if one member of a corporation is found guilty of anything, punish the whole corporation. After all, if one part of the individual commits a crime (shoplifting), the whole individual gets the punishment (jail time). Why do you think that the corporation - which is considered an individual - should have their complete punishment denied?

Re: Re: Re: I can't wait

> If your business model depended on people having at least some moral idea of right and wrong, then you are sunk.

Isn't that how all corporations work? Referring to the 2003 film "The Corporation", corporations have to operate like clinically-classified psychopaths in order to make a profit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_%28film%29) Sure, if corporations were run on the premise that people had a strong sense of morality (whatever that is), then yes, you'd be sunk - because competition would eat you alive. Corporations depend not on people having at least some moral idea of right and wrong; they depend on people being mindless consumers with no alternatives or options.

If this is the way corporations work, why fault consumers for disagreeing with how they work, or choosing to "join 'em" instead of "beat 'em" and act in same manner?

Re: CHECK YOUR FACTS -- JOINDER IS UNIVERSALLY PERMITTED

Your legal conclusions are VERY wrong -- most courts hold joinder is proper.

Been following these cases closely, and nearly all show joinder is improper. There are a *few* that are the reverse, but it's certainly not "universally" permitted. In almost every case we've seen, all defendants save one have been severed.

Re: Re: Re: I can't wait

I love your little ideas: "lack of morals" -- you sound like one of those rabid Zionists frothing at the mouth about the degeneration of America; how "they" go around showing their ankles, reading pornography, and having orgies with Satan.